I see no good reason to assume that did not exist several concubines. At least this is common practice among his predecessors and successors. And why should be among these women not again a lady from Achmin, which brings not really new dna informations into the royal family?

Indeed, and I agree with you in this point. My issue here is that how a concubine could be honored with a burial in the Valley of the Kings, years or maybe decades after her royal benefactor death? I believe that the two ladies at KV21 (if we consider that they were both related to Tutankhamun) were much more than "concubines", enjoying a royal status themselves.

Well, 25-40 years old ... And there it is preferred here in the forum rather younger bones ... _________________Ägyptologie - Forum (German)

... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.

Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.

The archeological part ... All the other finds from KV 55, beside the bones.

There is nothing in KV 55 that cannot argues that IF Akhenaten's funereal equipment exists in that tomb (and it's rather incomplete at that), that it could NOT have been reutilised for a 20-23 male royal inhabitant, who is a direct son of Amenhotep III and Tiye and still NOT be Akhenaten. Even Ramses II was reburied in a plain wooden coffin, and yet no one doubts the docket tags that say he is who he is, mainly because the anatomical examinations confirm it (Balout and Roubet, 1985).

My point is that there are two separate finds here: A) the remains which are those of a 20-23 year old male at death, who is directly related to Amenhotep III and Tiye, and who may be the ephemeral king Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu. B) There is a find of a coffin and other funereal equipment, including 2 magic bricks, which carry the name of Akhenaten.

There is no sarcophagus that goes with said coffin, there is reused canopic equipment belonging to Kiya, and the body has been rewrapped and placed in an altered coffin, that appears to have been originally made for Akhenaten.

Whatever you wish to make of these items, you cannot argue it is a complete burial for one person. It is reused and reutilised equipment for another person.

So, you can argue what the funereal equipment means, but you MUST note that said equipment has been altered and a body laid within an altered coffin: it does NOT follow that said body within the altered coffin MUST be Akhenaten. Biologically, the age is wrong and to date, no medical evidence has been submitted to alter that fact.

... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.

Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.

The archeological part ... All the other finds from KV 55, beside the bones.

There is nothing in KV 55 that cannot argues that IF Akhenaten's funereal equipment exists in that tomb (and it's rather incomplete at that), that it could NOT have been reutilised for a 20-23 male royal inhabitant, who is a direct son of Amenhotep III and Tiye and still NOT be Akhenaten. Even Ramses II was reburied in a plain wooden coffin, and yet no one doubts the docket tags that say he is who he is, mainly because the anatomical examinations confirm it (Balout and Roubet, 1985).

My point is that there are two separate finds here: A) the remains which are those of a 20-23 year old male at death, who is directly related to Amenhotep III and Tiye, and who may be the ephemeral king Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare Djeser Kheperu. B) There is a find of a coffin and other funereal equipment, including 2 magic bricks, which carry the name of Akhenaten.

There is no sarcophagus that goes with said coffin, there is reused canopic equipment belonging to Kiya, and the body has been rewrapped and placed in an altered coffin, that appears to have been originally made for Akhenaten.

Whatever you wish to make of these items, you cannot argue it is a complete burial for one person. It is reused and reutilised equipment for another person.

So, you can argue what the funereal equipment means, but you MUST note that said equipment has been altered and a body laid within an altered coffin: it does NOT follow that said body within the altered coffin MUST be Akhenaten. Biologically, the age is wrong and to date, no medical evidence has been submitted to alter that fact.

That we do not agree in determining the age is known. This will not change probably until further notice. You founded your view on several occasions, as I have done with mine. I think we should leave it this way and am frankly tired of repeating me over and over again (research university Dresden on medieval cemeteries, and so on...).

However, I still would like to see a document where magical bricks (arranged around the coffin following the ritual prescriptions from the Book of the Death) made for one person, where used for the burial or re-burial of another one. I could not find one single example in the literature, royal or non-royal...

The DNA suggests that KV21A is the likeliest candidate to be the mother of Tut's children. She herself is a member of the Royal dynasty but not a daughter of Akhenaten. Than who is she? How could a royal second wife of Tut who almost gave him two children not be mentioned in his tomb while his Great Royal Wife is. Even some items from her sister Meritaten are in his grave.
Im leaning more to two other conclusions:
1 KV55 isn't Akhenaten or
2 Achesenamun is not Anchesenpaaten daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti but someone else (she would still be related to the Royal Family but in a different way).

The DNA suggests that KV21A is the likeliest candidate to be the mother of Tut's children. She herself is a member of the Royal dynasty but not a daughter of Akhenaten. Than who is she? How could a royal second wife of Tut who almost gave him two children not be mentioned in his tomb while his Great Royal Wife is. Even some items from her sister Meritaten are in his grave.
Im leaning more to two other conclusions:
1 KV55 isn't Akhenaten or
2 Achesenamun is not Anchesenpaaten daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti but someone else (she would still be related to the Royal Family but in a different way).

Or 3. Nefertiti had an affair and Anchesenamun was never Akhenaten's daughter.

The possibilities are endless.

Maia's tomb, if she is indeed Meritaten herself, is key for understanding this period in Egyptian history. She loses her royal titles and the tomb fails to mention Nefertiti her mother or Akhenaten her alleged father? Something fishy and weird happened with that family.

Zivie notices that the different spellings of Maïa's name can points up to a nickname but, before embrace Meritaten's hypothesis, he sugested that it could be a diminutive of Mut. If we consider to include a Mut theophoric name, why not think about Mutbenret or Mutemnebut instead?